Some Clarifications Re: Open Letter to the Pope

The government, through Press Secretary Jesus Dureza, yesterday responded to the open letter to Pope Benedict XVI signed by various Muslim and Christian groups and handed over by Ms. Amina Rasul, lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (www.pcid.org.ph). Dureza said the government is “grateful there is such an initiative from the private sector,” but added: “it is not necessary to go to the Pope because it is the commitment of our President and the government to move forward in our peace process with armed groups.”

Secretary Dureza said the request of the Muslim groups led by Rasul should not send a wrong message to the Pope. “I think they are giving wrong information to the Pope. The government is after those people who committed criminal acts. They destroyed villages and killed people in Lanao del Norte and Central Mindanao. The police and military are not attacking communities, they are after the criminals,” he added.

As one of the many non-Muslims who signed the letter, I think it is important to clarify the nature of the open letter. First, it is difficult to understand why government, while saying it is grateful for private sector initiative, has become so defensive about a letter to the Pope appealing for the end to the crisis in Mindanao and seeking His Holiness’ help in convincing both the GRP and MILF panels to return to the negotiating table.   National leaders, peace advocates and Mindanao civil society organizations have petitioned the UN Secretary General and other international organizations to help bring the peace process back and end the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao.

Second, it is not a letter from Muslims Filipinos only.   In fact, there are more Christians who signed it than Muslims. The open letter is still attracting more signatories.  The interfaith nature of the letter came in the wake of Ms. Rasul’s participation to the 1st Catholic-Muslim Forum in Rome on November 4 to 6. The signatories include Bishop Nathanael Lazaro, chair of National Council of Churches in the Philippines and General Superintendent, Iglesia Evangelica Metodista en las Islas Filipinas; former Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Quintos-Deles, former DILG Sec. Cesar Sarino, former CSC Chair Karina Constantino-David, former senators Santanina Rasul and Vicente Paterno, former Commissioner on Human Rights Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic, Fr. Eliseo Mercado of Kusog Mindanaw,  Ms. Maritess Guingona-Africa of the Peacemakers Circle, Ms. Irene Santiago and Ms. Margie Moran-Florendo of the Mindanao Commission for Women, former UP President now Kalayaan College president Dr. Jose Abueva,  UP Law Dean Atty. Marvic Leonen and Ateneo School of Government Dean Antonio Lavina, Ustadz Esmael Ebrahim of the Darul Ifta Assembly of the Philippines, Professor Clarita Carlos and Ramon Casiple, Institute for Political and Economic Reform, among many.

Third, the government claimed that “wrong information” has been given to the Pope. The letter does not pin blame on one party.  The letter began by saying that “peace and justice have long been denied the minorities of the Philippines – both our Muslim brethren and our indigenous peoples’ communities.” Is this not true?

The letter continued: “Over the last two months, more than 100 have been killed and 600,000 have become refugees. Since the Supreme Court has issued a decision on October 14 that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional, we fear for the resurgence of a war of attrition between the MILF and government.” Even if government contests the number, is there any doubt that lives of innocent people have been lost and disrupted because of the conflict?

The letter then appealed to the Pope thus: “We hope that Your Holiness could help us bring peace and justice to our brothers and sisters in Mindanao by expressing concern about the unfolding humanitarian crisis and appeal for restraint for the protection of all civilians, as well as for the opening of access for the provision of speedy humanitarian assistance to the affected population.” The letter also appealed to the Pope to “help us convince the government of the Republic of the Philippines and MILF to go back to the peace negotiation table as soon as possible. We believe that it is imperative that both government and the MILF share the responsibility (underscoring supplied) for moving the peace process towards a sincere dialogue that reflects heavily the hearts and minds of all people who are affected by the escalating war in Mindanao.” Is government objecting to the letter’s plea for help in terms of ending the conflict and addressing the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao?

The government’s seemingly “defensive” reaction to the letter is truly baffling. We sincerely hope the government does not label this endeavor by well-meaning peace advocates as another destabilization plot—as it often does to anyone who opposes it. Why is government fearful of His Holiness adding his voice to calls for peace in Mindanao?

Finally, government talks about authentic dialog. What authentic dialog with communities can ever transpire if the same communities are under siege? Civil society organizations and community leaders in Mindanao have been appealing to both parties to immediately declare a ceasefire so that the lives of the people can go back to normal and then consultations can proceed.

We can appreciate the role of a government to pursue justice and maintain peace and order; which is the justification of this government in pursuing the MILF commanders. But capturing those commanders cannot be an end in itself. It cannot be the primary objective of any peace policy. One cannot destroy the peace in order to restore it. On the contrary, “there is no way to peace, peace is the way.

The Dilemma of Federalists

Our dilemma is simply this: federalism requires constitutional change and cha-cha (charter change) has been copyrighted by the occupants of Malacanang whose motives are always suspect. Our dilemma is Mrs. Gloria Arroyo.

Many supporters of federalism squirmed when the President announced her support for federalism (again!). While at this, why is it that she suddenly remembers federalism when her administration is in trouble? I remember she campaigned assiduously for federalism at the height of the “Hello Garci” crisis. Now, she rediscovers federalism amidst the controversy generated by her government’s inept handling of the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

As far as the first effort was concerned, she dangled federalism to move ahead with efforts to pursue a shift to a parliamentary system but dropped it (to the disappointment of Dr. Jose Abueva and the CMFP–Citizens Movement for a Federal Philippines). Now, she’s doing it again.

But let us make some points clear:

First, federalism is an excellent idea. This country needs federalism more than a parliamentary government. tIt aims to constitutionally redistribute powers from the center to the periphery (that is the difference between autonomy and federalism, autonomous local units get their powers from the center thereby subject to its whims; federalism enshrines such power arrangements in the constitution). In short, the principal effect of federalism is that it will make the central government irrelevant. This is also the reason why some opponents of federalism are those who are afraid of this power shift. Here lies the radicalism of federalism–the arena for democratic struggles in a federal arrangement is smaller hence more effective.

Some anti-federalists claim that a shift to a federal form will entrench local oligarchs. That is a valid claim but local oligarchs are already entrenched! In fact, some of them have captured national power to strengthen their hold to power at the local level. Federalism will deprive these local oligarchs of a lifeblood from the national repository of power and influence. State oligarchs (if and when they proliferate upon a shift to federalism) can expect stiff competition from a highly diversified elite class as well as a strengthened democratic citizenry because the arena for participative politics has also improved. The theory is this: Access to politicians in a federal set-up is likely to be easier and information about the state government’s—as well as politicians’—activities more readily available when government is small. With lower costs to participation, participation should increase.

Second, the sitting President supporting federalism (and hence charter change) is a bad idea. She cannot be trusted. And it is not paranoia to think that she will just use federalism to move forward her agenda to extend her term. Remember she said in 2000 that she will not seek reelection. Well, she not only reneged on that and ran for president; she also cheated her way to Malacanang. She doesn’t have the credibility to support federalism because under her watch the powers of the central government especially the executive actually expanded. She has also mastered the skill of manipulating local government leaders to achieve her own ends. Arroyo espousing federalism is like Joseph Estrada advocating marital infidelity.

So how do we deal with this dilemma? Do we just ignore her calls and be fence-sitters? No!

Federalists should get together and defend federalism from being hijacked once again by this administration. By all means, let us debate federalism. Let us start the national discourse on shifting the power arrangement in favor of local peoples. But let us also resist the attempt to prostitute an noble idea. If charter change is to be done to shift to federalism, it has to be through a constitutional convention. Some of GMA’s lackeys claim that concon costs more and takes more time. Well, had we proceeded with concon before rather than waste government resources on the doomed people’s initiative movement, we should have been done by now. Federalism is a radical change in government. It has to be the product of a national consensus. It cannot be rushed. It certainly cannot be fast tracked before she leaves office (it will probably be fast tracked once she’s gone).

Some people call GMA’s endorsement of federalism a kiss of death. I agree. But we cannot let her kill federalism. The same way she attempted to kill democracy in this country.

“THE GRP-MILF PEACE AGREEMENT, FEDERALISM AND THE MINDANAO CONFLICT”

What do Muslims think of federalism? Will federalism bring about peace? How can we situate federalism in the context of the impending signing of an agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)? Will it not exacerbate rather than bridge the gap in the distribution of resources? Will it not lead to the ‘Balkanization’ of our already fragmented country? Is the country ready for federalism?

These are some of the questions that will be addressed in the Islam and Democracy Media Forum organized by the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (www.pcid.org.ph), with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The forum will be held on August 8, Friday from 8.am. to 11:00 a.m. at Club Filipino’s Centennial Room.

The monthly media roundtable discussions, which started in July 2007, are aimed at providing a venue for the discussion of issues affecting Muslim communities and at the same time allow the media firsthand access to opinion makers, scholars, officials and other personalities deeply involved in Muslim issues.

With the intention of speeding up the economic development of the nation, and addressing the cause of rebellion and the ethnic conflicts in the South, Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. filed a resolution, supported by a dozen administration and opposition senators, calling for a shift to a federal system of government. Sen. Pimentel’s resolution has renewed public debates on whether the country is prepared to go federal.

The perceived failure of autonomy—given through the signing of the 1996 GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement—and continued dissatisfaction of the Moro over the iniquitous distribution of wealth and resources in the country have pushed a good number towards rebellion and calls for independence. Federalism is seen as a reasonable solution—short of independence but more substantive than autonomy—to the Mindanao conflict.

Scrap the SONA!

Really.

What do we need it for? To discern the state of the nation all you need are your five senses.

The best way to comprehend the state of the nation is to see the nunger on the streets, to smell the stench of corruption in government, to feel the misery and desolation of those whose loved ones were taken away by a repressive regime, to hear the rage of decent Filipinos over the cheating and deception that catapulted and maintained this administration to power, and taste the bitter pill that this regime wants the poor to swallow while claiming that “ramdam na ang kaunlaran.”

So why do we need to see a fashion show among legislators, rush a P90 million renovation of the venue of the SONA, and listen to the lies of that “lying bitch” (was that what Gov. Salceda used to described his boss? Sorry I couldn’t remember the exact term he used)?

In fact, not only should we scrap the SONA because it has no purpose, we should shelve it because it is a health hazard! I’d like to know how many among the taxi drivers suffered hypertensive attacks upon hearing that their income increased under this administration.

And how many from our Muslim brothers and sisters choked on their food when the President, the same administration that reneged on its earlier commitments to the MILF and continues to renege on its commitments contained in the 1996 Peace Agreement with the MNLF, proclaimed she wanted peace in Mindanao during her term. I wonder how many among us wanted to hang ourselves when we heard this: “As your President, I care too much about this nation…I will let no one, and no one’s political plans, get in the way of the well-being of the people. I will let no one hinder our people’s progress and prosperity. I will let no one threaten our nation’s survival. This is my commitment.”

Wasn’t it her political plans (when she said she wasn’t running in 2001 but reneged) that started the political crisis we have been experiencing?

And who threatens our nation’s survival but her? I really almost fell off my chair when I heard: “As your President, I care too much about this nation…” and that she worries about the housewife, the student, the teacher, and the farmer.

She said, “Leadership is not about doing the first easy thing that comes to mind; it is about doing what is necessary, however hard.” That is true. But why does the poor always have to bear the brunt of this bitter pill. Leadership is about showing your people a clear vision of the future no matter how difficult AND leading the way to that perilous road. She worries about the common tao? Why don’t she and her family switch places with that poor family she cares a lot for?

She blames the imposition of VAT as the cause of her unpopularity. Not true. She was unpopular even before VAT! She doesn’t get it. She is unpopular not because she has the courage to make decisions that may be difficult to swallow. She is unpopular because people do not consider her as their president! This is the reason why whatever her administration does—good or bad—people are always suspicious. Tough, but that is the consequence of cheating your way to the presidency.

Despite the evils of her administration, she will probably survive until 2010. She and her allies, however, should not rejoice. It will be (as it is now) a very lonely and insecure presidency. Just look at the number of policemen mobilized just because the President has to deliver a speech. Her administration will quiver every time a holiday comes along, for fear that destabilization attempts might be launched.

But the saddest of all is this. History, I believe, will be harsh on her. If Claro Recto and Jovito Salonga are often referred to as the best presidents we never had; Gloria will be known as the worst president we should have never had.

Really.

(Erratum: I just remembered, Gov Salceda called GMA a “lucky bitch” not a “lying bitch.” Sorry for that. Really.)

Presidential Prerogative or Arrogance?

Sec. Eduardo Ermita defended the President’s decision to appoint retired Court of Appeals Justice Lucenito N. Tagle and Malabon Regional Trial Court Judge Leonardo L. Leonida as Commission on Elections (Comelec) commissioners by saying that the President has the sole prerogative to choose officials for government posts. “It’s one to recommend, its one for the President to make her decision over something. In the end, it is the President who makes the final decision…That is the essence of presidential decision,” Mr. Ermita explained.

It will be recalled that civil society groups including former Ambassador Henrietta T. de Villa, chairman of the election watchdog Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting, have expressed disappointment with the appointment of Tagle and Leonida as they were not part of the list of persons they recommended to the President.

Malacanang’s defense is, of course, anchored on Art VII, Sec 16 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.”

Arrogance and Insensitivity

But is the president’s prerogative to appoint absolute? Obviously not. The constitution provides that such power to appoint shall be circumscribed by the power of Congress to give its consent to such appointments. Mr. Ermita, therefore, cannot simply dismiss criticisms from civil society by simply saying that it is “presidential prerogative.” This is because such executive power has to be understood within the context of the principle of separation of powers and the system of check and balance. The idea of separation of powers centers on the need to give the different branches equal but different powers to avoid placing too much power to one individual or group. The corollary system of check and balance on the other hand ensures that any of the branch of government can exercise its power to check possible abuses committed by the other departments. One can surmise therefore that the grant of powers to government comes with a grave concern about ts abuse. This is the particular value of a constitution: to limit the plenary powers of government.That is the essence of democracy, Mr. Secretary.

But beyond constitutionality, the Malacanang’s defense of the President’s recent appointments (including that of a defeated senatorial candidate) reflects the arrogance and callousness that have characterized this administration.

Everyone knows that serious questions about the credibility of the electoral process have been raised since the so-called “Hello Garci” scandal. This government knows that many of the destabilization attempts against it have been motivated by assertions that the President cheated during the 2004 elections. Civil society has not been remissed in reminding Mrs. Arroyo that she should appoint COMELEC commisioners who can at least ameliorate such negative impression. The chair of the electoral body, Justice Jose Melo has also admitted that the agency he heads suffer from a “credibility gap.” Knowing all these, one would think that anadministration, sensitive to public opinion and wanting to strengthen democratic institiutions, would at least appoint commissioners that will reflect the electoral reforms needed to restore the trust of the people towards the electoral process. But no.

What we have is an insensitive government that would rather display its arrogance by telling people that they can pretty much do anything they want. That is the message being sent here. Malacanang created a body to recommend to the president possible appointments to the COMELEC. After that body came up with a list of people with probity and unbesmirched character, what does government do? It ignored the list; appointed its own and defended it by saying it is their power to do so.

The appointees also came up with some sort of a defense: give us a chance; don’t prejudge us. Sorry sirs, we cannot afford to give you a chance. The upcoming ARMM elections and the crucial 2010 elections are simpy too critical to be giving anyone time to prove himself. And besides, civil society has given a long list of people who do not have to prove themselves; why would this government appoint people who begs to be given a chance to prove themselves? Will they resign if they fail? I doubt. We have to remember that COMELEC commissioners can only be removed by impeachment and with Congress being what it is that is virtually impossible. So we cannot just accept the appointment and hope that they do well.

The cliche is true: absolute power corrupts absolutely. But should it also cripple resistance?

Pimentel’s Federalism Proposal

I am reproducing below the speech of Sen. Nene Pimentel explaining his decision to file a resolution in the Senate calling for a shift to a federal system of government. This is, of course, not the first advocacy for federalism. But its significance lies in its timing and its messenger.

The issue of federalism is raised by Sen Pimentel amidst the continuing crisis in Philippine politics that has resulted in the people losing confidence in their government. The renewed call for federalism is also made two years before the next presidential elections of 2010 which different groups see as a potential watershed in terms of significant political reforms in the country.

Recent efforts to establish a federal Philippines have of course been derailed and hijacked by politicians who, at the last moment, dropped the federal agenda in favor of a shift to parliamentary system. Sen. Pimentel, although a veteran of Philippine politics, is increasingly seen as a statesman and therefore devoid of the unscrupulous motivations of past messengers.

Days after its filing, opponents of federalism have raised the usual arguments against it. Which is good. I hope this starts a genuine and impassioned debate on federalism. I will write a separate piece defending federalism against those arguments. But for now, here is Sen. Nene’s speech:

Federalizing the Philippines:The Final Solution within Reason

[Keynote address of Sen. Nene Pimentel at the seminar on Federalism in Carmona, Cavite on April 23, 2008]

First my thanks to Dr. Alex Brillantes, Dr. Simeon Ilago and Klaus Preschle and their organizations, the UP CLRG/NCPAG and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation for inviting me to share my thoughts on the proposal to federalize our country.

To save time, let me go straight to the proposal to adopt the federal system.

Seminal in ‘82

Our formal espousal of the proposal started when the PDP-Laban was organized in 1982 to provide our people a third way of getting out of the mess the country was in. Or, if you please, give them an alternative to both the dictatorship of President Marcos and the armed rebellions that opposed it.

The federal idea that we espoused was seminal in many respects.

We did not like the dictatorship and the concentration of government power that was implicit in it. Neither did we want to spill so much Filipino blood in the undertaking to oust Marcos from power.

Disperse power

We thought that the solution was to disperse power – political and economic – throughout the nation.

The most concrete way of doing it in our mind was to convert the country into a federal republic.

I will now take up with you the most recent form of our federal advocacy.

Invasive surgery

This advocacy is contained in a resolution that I prepared upon request by some of our colleagues in the Senate and in the House, some local government officials and friends from the NGO sector.

The 63-page resolution requires the revision of 14 of the existing 18 Articles of the Constitution and the addition of two new Articles.

To use the more picturesque terms of surgeons, the revision requires an invasive surgery into the constitutional structure of our body politic.

The surgical operation will create 11 Federal States out of the existing political subdivisions of the country and one federal administrative region.

Luzon States

Luzon will have four States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Northern Luzon;

2. The Federal State of Central Luzon;

3. The Federal State of Bicol, and

4. The Federal State of Southern Tagalog.

Metro-Manila will be converted into a Federal Administrative Region along the lines of a Washington, D.C., a New Delhi or a Kuala Lumpur.

Visayas States

The Visayas will have four federal States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Minparom;

2. Federal State of Eastern Visayas;

3. The Federal State of Central Visayas, and

4. The Federal State of Western Visayas.

Mindanao States

Mindanao will have three Federal States, namely:

1. The Federal State of Northern Mindanao;

2. The Federal State of Southern Mindanao, and

3. The Federal State of the BangsaMoro.

Briefly, the State boundaries will cut across the present regional boundaries.

We recommend that the States be constituted out of bigger political territories to provide the environment for competitiveness and sustainability rather than create States out provinces that in many instances might simply be too small to survive as a State.

For easy reference as to how the States are constituted, we have appended a copy of the Resolution to this discussion paper.

National Territory, defined

Please note that the Resolution defines the territory of the Federal Republic and unequivocally includes two previously ambiguously claimed islands, reefs or shoals.

Embraced as parts of the Federal State of Central Luzon are the Scarborough shoals and as parts of Minparom, the Kalayaan islands.

Seats of power, dispersed

The Resolution also disperses the seats of power of the major branches of government.

The executive department will hold offices in the Federal Administrative Region of Metro-Manila.

The legislative department will hold office in the Federal State of Central Visayas.

The judicial department will hold office in the Federal State of Northern Mindanao.

By so doing, the two other major geographical regions of the country, the Visayas and Mindanao will now fully appreciate that they are important parts – not merely appendices – of the Republic.

Legislative powers, shared

The legislative powers of the Republic are shared mainly by the law-making powers of the Federal Republic and the States. But the provincial, city, municipal and barangay powers and structures are basically left intact.

LGU revenue shares, increased

In terms of allocating the resources of the Republic, a formula is provided in the Resolution: 30% will go to the Federal Government and 70% to the States. Of the 70% accruing to the States, 30% will go the State governments, and 70% to the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.

In this formula, the shares of the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays will be bigger than what is currently provided for under the local government code.

Equalization Fund

There are many other new directions and opportunities provided for in the move to federalize the Republic.

To address the reality that not all the Federal States are born equal in terms of resources and opportunities, the Resolution provides for an equalization fund that will administered by the Federal Government to assist States in dire need of development funds.

Political & economic objectives

For purposes of our discussion and to enable our participants to air their concerns, let me begin to conclude this statement. Let me just add that as we had explained time and again, the federal system is meant to accomplish two major things:

1. Cause the speedy development of the entire country by unleashing the forces of competitiveness among the States, and

2. Dissipate the causes of rebellion in the country and particularly in Mindanao.

Allow me to underscore the fact that the move to federalize the country is not simply a ‘political’ undertaking it is also an economic effort. By creating 11 Federal States and by converting Metro-Manila as a federal administrative region, we immediately establish 12 centers of power, finance and development throughout the country.

Under the unitary system that has characterized the government for centuries we only had one center of power, finance and development: Metro-Manila.

Just & lasting redress

The federal proposal will hopefully provide a just and lasting redress of the grievances of the powerless and the neglected sectors of society, like the Moro peoples of Mindanao.

By federalizing the Republic, the States will hopefully be able to address the needs of their component sectors more readily.

And in the case of the Moro peoples, their own federal state would conceivably enable them to run their state government according to their customs and traditions subject of course to the norms of modern democratic governments.

Thank you for your kind indulgence.

Secretary of (Mis) Education

Education Secretary Jesli Lapus lamented how young students are being dragged into the political turmoil. “We will not allow political exercises in schools,” he declared, “Education must proceed uninterrupted and protected.” He was reacting to recent visits made by ZTE/NBN witness Jun Lozada to various schools in Metro Manila.

The sad thing about these statements is not so much that they are misplaced but that they come from no less than the secretary of education.

He will not allow political exercises in schools? But education IS a political act! The very essence of education is to transform individuals into critical and autonomous beings. Even Section 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so: Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“Education must proceed uninterrupted and protected,” he said. This is probably the most eloquent description of the sad state of Philippine education today: the view that education is simply confined to the school hours spent while inside a classroom. As I said in my previous blog, participation in the political realm, be it in the form of street rallies or attending campus seminars like the one of Lozada, is probably the best form of political education.

For crying out loud, let the kids get involved in political discussion. We always complain about the apathy of the youth and yet here we have students actively participating in a political issue and the secretary of education “reminds” them that they should stay inside their classrooms and complete the DepEd mandated hours per school year.

The reminder is obviously a reaction to the popularity of Lozada in his campus tours. It is a subtle attempt to subvert the truth. The secretary doesn’t realize that the solution to his problem is not to prevent Lozada from speaking before students, the solution, the democratic solution is to use the same venue to engage Lozada in a reasoned discourse. But hey, it’s probably too naive to expect reason from this administration. Strangely, I tend to agree with the pronouncement of former COMELEC chief Ben Abalos that he intends to do his own campus tours. I think schools should welcome him, listen to him and subject him to reasoned criticism. In fact, I think both Lozada and Abalos should go to campuises together. And let the young people decide for themselves. Again, that is political education.

But we know that will not happen. Because this administration has time and again avoided a situation where, God knows, the truth might come out. In the end, the reminder of Sec. Lapus isn’t really about following some bureaucratic memorandum on the required minimum hours for schools, it is the knee-jerk reaction of a government afraid of its own people; afraid that they may discover the truth. As William Blake said:”Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.” This government obviously doesn’t like a politicized people.

Politicizing the Young

Some people who have refused to join anti-Arroyo rallies have said that the street demonstrations are futile. “Wala din naman mangyayari d’yan! (Nothing will come out of these rallies!),” is the usual comment. What is the point of joining rallies if it will not achieve its purpose anyway, so the argument goes. Some have even rejected the very idea of people power: “What? People power na naman!?”

These sentiments are understandable but it is important to clarify certain issues.

First, if street demonstrations fail to meet its direct objective, i.e., make GMA step down from office, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the mobilizations have failed. The public outcry against the sitting government on the heels of the testimony of Jun Lozada, the participation of a cross section of Philippine society in mass actions, and the continued isolation of this corrupt and “evil” government are more than enough indicators of success. It is better of course if GMA resigns as a result of these protests but if she decides to hang on to power it should not be taken to mean as a defeat for those who participated in the rallies. Her clinging on to her post is more a reflection of her values than the success of the movement. She can probably finish her term, but what a lonely and paranoid term it will be! No one likes her except her family and those who benefited from her administration; her administration is in perpetual “holiday paranoia” (every time a major holiday nears she worries about mass actions against her or worse attempts to unseat her).

Second, at the very least street protests are a form of political education. One of the positive aspects of EDSA DOS and the current series of mass actions against GMA is the active participation of young Filipinos, particularly students. By joining these rallies, young Filipinos learn valuable lessons of democracy: active citizenship, that participation goes beyond elections. They also learn that the best lesson in political life is achieved not just within the corners of the classrooms or the confines of their curriculum but in active engagement in political matters.

Which brings me to the third, and to my mind, the most important point. Participation in these demonstrations politicizes the young in a way that they are exposed to the kind of politics that is empowering and truly democratic. I have always maintained that one of the reasons young people are perceived as apathetic is because they have a wrong notion of what politics is. They think that politics is dirty, that it is an arena populated by greedy, unscrupulous and corrupt politicians. They hear it everyday from their teachers, parents and the media. As a result they think that they should not be involved in a dirty business like politics. Hence their apathy.

Their participation in rallies introduces them to the idea that politics should not just be viewed from a myopic perspective; that politics does not refer to corrupt politicians. That is a perversion of politics. Politics is an arena for citizenship. It is a venue for citizens tosettle their differences and forge common visions. Hopefully, they also realize that politics is too complicated and important to be left to politicians. And that these mass actions are a way to reclaim that arena for citizens.

If politics is dirty, the solution is not to withdraw from it but to engage in it; to master it.B By attempting to suppress the truth GMA is unwittingly radicalizing the youth. This has happened in almost all revolutions around the world. But GMA, like Marcos, refuses to heed the lessons of history .

Good for us.

She is not my President!

“I am the President and no one else!”

This was Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s stern statement before friends and families amidst mounting calls for her to resign as a result of multiple corruption scandals that have plagued her administration. She doesn’t get it.

“She is not my president!”

GMA cannot claim to be the president if a great majority of Filipinos (as shown consistently by surveys) do not consider her as their president. She cannot be president if a majority of the people think that she stole the presidency. The most important ingredient of democracy is consent of the governed. And here clearly there is none.

This is also the reason why Gloria has retreated to arguing behind the cloak of the “rule of law.” She said that people should follow the constitution and let her finish her term until 2010. The only problem with that is she cannot finish a term which is not hers! She should not have even begun the term in the first place.

Let us get one thing clear. This is not mob rule. When people have differences with the policies of a legitimate president, I agree that one cannot just resort to ousting that president. The constitution provides for mechanisms and citizens’ rights that will allow them to seek redress of their grievances.

But the situation of GMA is different. The people are asking for her to step down not just because they disagree with her. In fact, in some instances, the people might actually agree with some of her policies. The point is beyond simple policy differences. The governed, the people are questioning her legitimacy; the very foundation of her claim to power.

GMA should remember that she grabbed power through extra-constitutional means, i.e., the people directly exercising their sovereignty by withdrawing their consent and support for then President Estrada. Now, the people are exercising the same.

Some people criticize our penchant for “people power.” But what can people do in a situation where the institutions of democracy have failed. You can only demand that people follow the democratic processes IF those processes are working. Let us not apply the standards of advanced democracies to a nation that can only be best described as a fragile one.

Besides, this probably the perfect opportunity for us to renew our spirit as a democratic people. Let us use this seemingly confusing situation to embolden ourselves to institute reforms so that we may not have to resort to this again in the future. But until those institutions are working for the people, people power will remain as the last refuge of the Filipinos.

GMA said that she is the president. But madam “president”, we are the people!

PCID CONDEMNS ATTACK ON CONGRESS, CALLS FOR RESOLVE AND CAUTION

The Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (PCID) expresses its shock and condemnation over the deaths and injuries resulting from the explosion at the House of Representatives. The attack which initially appears to be a deliberate brutal act is a direct attack on one of the country’s democratic institutions and should be denounced by all peace-loving citizens.

No political end or belief system can justify such dastardly act.

We call on law enforcement authorities to exhaust all legal means to put the perpetrators to justice. We commiserate with the families of those who have been victimized by this brutal attack. We particularly mourn the death of a brother in faith, Basilan Representative Wahab Akbar who passed away as a result of the blast.

Occurring on the heels of the Glorietta blast and in the context of current political turmoil, the explosion will definitely add to the political instability the country is currently experiencing. More importantly, we call upon the media, politicians and other concerned parties to exercise caution in assigning blame to a particular group for the attack before a thorough investigation has been conducted. Let us not repeat the mistake of hurriedly blaming, arresting and incarcerating Muslims for all acts of terrorism (as many did after the Glorietta blast). Wrongly labeling or accusing a group as terrorists is as much a cowardly act as the attack on Congress itself.

We appeal to everyone to exercise sobriety and resolve. If the intent of this act is to sow fear, let us not be afraid. If the motive is to derail our resolve to fight corruption and injustice, let us be steadfast in our convictions.

Press Statement by the PHILIPPINE COUNCIL FOR ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY November 14, 2007

PCID Secretariat (632)5326068

mkfi@pldtdsl.net

www.pcid.org.ph